Full Judgment
05. 04/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Contempt Petition (MD) No.712 of 2010 Saravanan .. Petitioner versus Thiru Balusamy Commissioner Trichirapalli City Corporation Trichirapalli. .. Respondents ----- PRAYER Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for the disobedience of the order of the Court passed in W.P.(MD) No.401 of 2006 dated 07.03.2007. !For petitioner ... Mr.S.Muthukrishnan ^For respondent ... Mr.J.Parekh Kumar for Mr.P.Srinivas :ORDER (Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) It is seen from the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.401 of 2006 dated 07.03.2007 that this Court directed the petitioner to submit his explanation to the notice dated 04.01.2006, which called upon the petitioner to vacate the bunk shop within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. This Court further directed that on receipt of such explanation, the respondents therein shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This Court observed that while considering the explanation of the writ petitioner, the respondents shall take into consideration the recommendation of the District Collector dated 14.05.1980 and the allotment of site by the Commissioner of the then Trichy Municipality dated 18.06.1980 on the ground of self-employment and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. Since the writ petitioner had not filed any reply, the order of eviction was made.
2. The petitioner filed a letter through his counsel dated 09.08.2010, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner had given his explanation on 05.04.2007 in person, for which there was no order and on 03.02.2010, the staff of the respondents damaged the property belonging to the petitioner and removed the shop. In the circumstances, he issued a notice, calling upon the respondents to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and to reinstate the petitioner to some other place. Based on the above facts, the present contempt petition has been filed.
3. On notice, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the statement made by the petitioner that he had given an explanation on 05.04.2007, was a false statement and that he had not given any reply at any point of time to the notice already issued to the petitioner. It is further stated that based on the notices issued, encroachments made by other shopkeepers in that area were also removed. It is further stated that the representation given by the petitioner on 25.02.2010 was also replied to by the commissioner on 08.04.2010. Thereupon, the petitioner has come before this Court. It is further stated that the petitioner had earmarked a place in Nandhikoil Street as a parking area. The right to collect the parking fee was given to third parties by conducting auction every year by the respondent Corporation. One Moses Richard filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.1120 of 2009, challenging the auction notification for the year 2009-2010 and for a direction to shift the parking place to some other place. The writ petition was contested by the respondent and ultimately, by order dated 24.08.2009, this Court dismissed the writ petition.
4. It is stated that subsequent thereto, due to the increased vehicle flow and traffic congestion, the respondent decided not to use the said place for vehicle parking any further and also stopped departmental collection from 16.09.2009. In the circumstances, there is no violation of this Court's order.
5. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, we find that though the notice issued by the petitioner's counsel refers to an explanation stated to have been made by the petitioner on 05.04.2007 to the notice issued by the respondent as per the order of this Court, there is absolutely no material placed before this Court as to the factum of service of the explanation dated 05.04.2007 on the respondent. It is further seen from the order passed by the Commissioner that the alternate sites noted by the petitioner could not be granted, since the first alternate site suggested by the petitioner viz., area in Kottai Station Road - Madurai Road, is a place belonging to the Highways Department and the second alternate site given in Melaran Salai near Kamaraj Curve, would be a hindrance to the traffic, particularly to the pedestrians. Having regard to the said letter, while rejecting the contempt petition, we direct the petitioner to give some other alternate site to the respondent herein, so as to enable the respondent to consider the possibility of re- locating the petitioner. No costs. ksv To The Commissioner Tiruchirappalli City Corporation Tiruchirappalli.